For those who handle claims involving occurrence based policies, you will probably find the California Supreme Court’s decision in Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange the most notable coverage case of this past quarter. In Delgado, the Court distinguished the landmark duty to defend case of Gray v. Zurich based on the fact that Gray did not involve an “accident”-based occurrence definition. While Delgado is not a duty to defend case, it gives insurers clarification in cases where clearly intentional acts are cast as “negligence” to trigger insurance coverage. We hope you find our summaries of Delgado and other notable coverage cases informative. As always, we welcome any comments, questions or the opportunity to elaborate on any coverage question you or your group may have.
Of particular interest in this issue are cases addressing the qualified pollution exclusion, insurers’ duty of diligent inquiry upon notice of a claim, and a District Court opinion which concludes that under Nevada law there can be bad faith in the absence of coverage. We hope you find our case summaries informative and, as always, we welcome any comments, questions or the opportunity to elaborate on any coverage question you or your group may have.
In the last two quarters, our appellate courts have addressed a wide spectrum of coverage issues. We hope you find our brief summaries of them informative. In this issue, we also include an article pertaining to proofs of loss in first party cases which was prompted by a recent appellate decision that is currently unpublished. As always, we welcome any comments, questions or the opportunity to elaborate on any coverage question you or your group may have.
The third quarter of 2008 produced a modest number of published coverage decisions from the California appellate courts (and none from Nevada). Of particular interest is the Second District’s decision in Brehm v. Superior Court, which held that an auto insurer can face bad faith liability if it fails to make reasonable efforts to settle before demanding uninsured motorist arbitration. We would not be surprised if, in the future, insureds attempt to invoke this holding in connection with first party property policies. We hope you find our case summaries informative and, as always, we welcome any comments, questions or the opportunity to elaborate on any coverage question you or your group may have.